Wild Steelhead??

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by jessejames, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    As a general rule, and if you are a state agency, if you are hiding something, it is generally not a good sign, especially if they can't use the "national security is at stake ploy." What about the freedom of information act here?

    Do we have a right to review what the DFW is up to? The fish belong to us and DFW is paid by us. I don't think we should be easily discounted.

    Also, this idea of attending public hearings, listening to an overwhelming cry to release all wild fish, only to find that they voted to allow the destruction of native fish, is getting on my nerves. I mean, what's the point? I'd rather go fishing that to give up time attending these hearings, only to find it was for naught.

    Bob, the Adipose fin does not a wild fish make? :confused:
     
  2. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,349
    Likes Received:
    1,158
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    "What's the point?"( of going to meetings, testimony etc)

    The point is that if we don't take the time to do it then the only voice we will hear out there will be:

    "KILL THE FISH!"

    Most of the gains in wild fish conservation here have been very hard won. As far as time and personal expense, it has always been a matter of diminishing returns,( not to mention diminished return runs of wild fish.)

    But there is real progress here. Four years ago you could legally kill 30 wild steelhead in Washington. That was just plain wrong. Then, despite the political bullying of the pro harvest side, the harvest was reduced to five wild steelhead per year.

    Now, after some very good qualified science, and a tremendous amount of behind the scenes professional work, all of it volunteer, and a landslide of grass roots campaigning and the testimony of wild fish advocates at many public hearings- including your own- we have a one fish per season limit on wild steelhead in Washington.

    This was accomplished despite a brutal amount of very ugly political manipulation by the pro harvest side, including such luminaries as Rep Jim Buck( R-Joyce,Wa), Mayor Nedra Reed of Forks, WA, and a host of tribal interests who feared public scorn for their own continued netting harvest in the face of an outright sport catch moratorium on wild steelhead harvest. It did not help that we were in an election year and that our state's attorney general, Christine Gregoire, was running for Governor.

    Without the lifelong committment to wild fish conservation, from fishermen and concerned citizen conservationists and scientists, there would be no Endangered Species Act or designated ESU's today, much less wild steelhead.

    Every voice counts. Each time it is needed. Any time we catch a wild fish; a sea run cutthroat trout, a bull trout or a wild steelhead or salmon, we owe a debt of gratitude to the efforts of those who came before us and who stood up, often at tremendous personal expense, against impossible odds on behalf of wild fish, wildlife and the environment.

    The momentum of the development and resource exploitation dollar has gained renewed vigor in these twisted political times. We who regard the environment and it's many indigenous species as worthy of conservation, restoration and preservation, must also find the courage and endurance to work tirelessly, selflessly and together against these threats to the decades of hard-won conservation protections for wild fish and their habitats.

    What will we leave behind? What will our world be like fifty years from now. What will our children, and our children's children think of us from the world they inherit?

    No matter what our managers or politicians do or say, we owe it to Life to stand and deliver.
     
  3. Ken Hunter

    Ken Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Shoreline, Wa, USA.
    Bob,

    Very well said.

    I think it was Gandhi that said something like this. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then the fight you, then they go away.

    A lot of work has been done already. Right now it looks like it's time to fight.

    Ken
     
  4. Brian Simonseth

    Brian Simonseth Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Skagit, Stillaguamish mostly
    Well here is what they said

    "WDFW Hatcheries mark 100% of the Steelhead and the Tribal Hatcheries will mark 100% of there Steelhead by 2005. The Quinaults were the last hold out."
     
  5. jessejames

    jessejames Flyslinger

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,920
    Likes Received:
    393
    Location:
    Show Low, Arizona
    Thanks Brian for your research and posting that info.
    jesse clark
     
  6. alpinetrout

    alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    207
    Location:
    Hiding in your closet
    You hit the nail on the head with that, particularly the last sentence!
     
  7. ray helaers

    ray helaers Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    In the case of the Idaho hatchery steelhead, at least part of the motivation for not marking all the fish is to "reserve" those fish for the Nez Perce terminal-fishery, not necessarily to allow those fish to spawn naturally. This has been going on for several years. The Nez Perce won a suit against NOAA that allows them to release unmarked fish as long as NOAA continues to tolerate current dam operations on the Snake and Columbia. The court said that NOAA could not apply a double standard against the Nez Perce and their hatchery. NOAA didn't have to allow the hatchery practices; it could have cracked down on the dams. They took the path of least resistance, never mind what was best for the resource.

    There is no evidence that any hatchery program is better than any other, including the so-called "supplementation" programs. Last year the BPA's Independent Science Advisory Board released a report on all the "supplementation" programs in the Columbia Basin. They found no evidence that any of the programs contribute anything positive to wild populations, and plenty of suggestion that they actually harm wild fish. In fact they found that none of the programs is even being run in a way where you could determine what it's effects really are, or even whether the hatchery was meeting its own goals, for conservation or fisheries. In general, the ISAB found the programs poorly run in almost all regards. It implicitly suggested a moratorium on any new supplementation programs until the problems could be reconciled.

    Any credible supplementation effort would REQUIRE the marking of the hatchery fish. The program managers need solid data to determine rather accuratley the relative percentages of hatchery-origin and natural-origin returning adults used for hatchery brood-stock, and the ratios of hatchery fish and natural fish on the natural spawning grounds. You can't do that without some kind of mark (it doesn't have to be an ad-clip, but to do the spawning-ground surveys, you need a visual mark). You can't just release a whole bunch of hatchery fish into the wild and hope for the best. Of course, that is the way many current programs are run (which is what the ISAB found so troubling).

    Just calling a hatchery a "supplementation" or "conservation" program doesn't make it less damaging. In fact, as the ISAB and many other independent researchers have found, these programs can be even more dangerous than the old-fashioned fishery-enhancement programs, where managers at least attempt to segregate the hatchery fish from the naturally spawning wild fish. In most cases they do a piss poor job of it, but at least the unfit hatchery fish are not MEANT to spawn with the wild fish, which are already facing enough stress from habitat damage and overfishing.

    I don't know if the Nez Perce program is screwing anglers. If they come up with a scheme that keeps me from retaining the steelhead that they produce for their own fishery with their own money (for a moment, consider the tax dollars they use as reparations), I'm not sure that's exactly perfidy. I do believe the program is certainly screwing the last of the wild steelhead in the upper Snake drainage.
     
  8. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    I believe the Elwha Indians don't mark their fish so that they will be released if caught at sea and make it back to their hatchery. Seems as if they are using the good will of the sporstmen to release so-called wild fish for their own advantage. Has a bad odor all this.

    Bob, the Thanks Ray, for your input. :thumb:
     
  9. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    I think you are getting close with the bad odor remark bob....
    HATCHERIES STINK!!!!!
    -Thomas